23 total
Appeal to stay class action dismissed; issue estoppel prevents relitigating arbitration clause despite change in law.
The defendants in a class action regarding payday loans appealed the dismissal of their renewed motion to stay the proceeding based on arbitration clauses in the loan agreements.
They argued that recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions changed the law, entitling them to a stay despite their previous unsuccessful stay motion.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied.
The court exercised its discretion against allowing relitigation, finding that the plaintiffs' reliance on the prior determination and the advanced stage of the litigation outweighed the defendants' loss of the right to arbitrate.
Judicial review of WSIAT decisions denying temporary total disability benefits dismissed as not patently unreasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying him temporary total disability benefits for a specific period.
The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to apply Board policies, breached its duty of fairness, made findings contrary to the record, and violated s. 15 of the Charter.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were not patently unreasonable, the duty of fairness was met, and the Charter claim could not be raised for the first time on judicial review without an evidentiary record.
Excluding law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions from FOI public interest override violates Charter s. 2(b).
The applicant submitted a freedom of information request for records concerning an Ontario Provincial Police review of alleged police and Crown misconduct.
The Ministry refused disclosure, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemptions and found the public interest override in s. 23 of the Act did not apply to them.
The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion of these exemptions from the public interest override infringed the applicant's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.
The Court remedied the breach by reading the exemptions into s. 23.